Abstract

This report was commissioned by the Better Regulation Delivery Office (BRDO) as part of a
programme of work aimed at promoting greater sharing of business data between regulatory
organisations. The research on which this report is based investigated the perceptions of
regulators on the subject – i.e. their views on what promotes or inhibits data sharing.
Findings and recommendations are summarised below:
• There is a distinct gulf between large data-rich and small data-poor regulatory
organisations. The former have the power to acquire the data they need and tend to
question whether the benefits warrant the costs involved in sharing data with others.
• Inequalities between the data-rich and data-poor could potentially be reduced if a
codified duty and power for regulatory organisations to share data was introduced -
incorporating ideally the comply-or-explain principle, to allow for operational flexibility
and to avoid the need for legislation to address existing prohibitions.
• Successful inter-regulator data sharing relationships are typically built upon pre-
existing social and organisational networks. Regulatory organisations should
consider where they have such resources and how these could be utilised to
increase data-sharing where potential social and economic benefits can be shown to
exist.
• Type of data is critical. Technical and legal considerations make data-mining of
shared datasets of even simple factual information more resource-intensive than
sharing discrete intelligence on criminal noncompliance - the latter benefits from Data
Protection Act exemptions and the well-established networks of regulatory
intelligence staff.
• Constraints on data sharing arise in part from the operation of the legal and
regulatory regime governing data protection. Problems include uncertainty,
complexity, and disproportionality of sanctions. A particular issue is the way the Data
Protection Act overlaps with, or sometimes cuts across, statutes applying to specific
public bodies.
• A perception that the sanctions available under the Data Protection Act are
disproportionate to the objectives of the legislation appears to be having a chilling
effect on data sharing between public bodies.
• A ‘National Data Strategy’, recommended in the Shakespeare Review, could help
break down technical barriers to data sharing focusing perhaps on encouraging joint
working on data sourcing and mandatory publication of data catalogues, as well as
consideration of a new public sector data sharing standard.
• Some government departments already take a lead in supporting data-sharing
amongst their reporting organisations. This is helpful as realising the potential
benefits from increased data sharing requires such support, particularly to overcome
technology issues which disproportionately affect smaller, data-poor organisations.